ED NOTE: Courbat and his band of intrepid Election Integrity advocates are owed a huge debt of thanks and enormous congratulations for their effort. This recommendation, and indeed the creation of the "Blue Ribbon" commission itself, only came about due to the dogged, week-in, week-out, year-in, year-out persistence of Tom and the Riverside County advocates of SAVE R VOTE. We're happy to run his first-hand, guest blog contribution on this tremendous victory, as Courbat's group and efforts serve as a role model for citizens in every county in the nation. --- BF

Dump the DREs and Minimize Additional Outlays To Go To Paper Ballots

Next Tuesday, July 17, 2007, the Riverside County, California Board of Supervisors’ hand-picked “Blue Ribbon” Elections Review Committee will present the Board with recommendations to “Move as quickly as possible to a hybrid voting system…on paper ballots…counted by optical scanners.”

For Riverside County, the first in America to move to touch-screen electronic voting systems, the importance of their findings cannot be overstated.

With the exception of omitting the words “Digital Imaging” from the term “optical scanners” (aka “DIOS”), this is exactly the recommendation made to the committee by Finnish Computer Voting expert Harri Hursti to the Elections Review Committee in Palm Desert, CA, on March 30th of this year. Hursti came to Riverside after Supervisor Jeff Stone laid down a "1000 to 1" challenge, as covered in detail by The BRAD BLOG, that we'd be unable to manipulate the county's Sequoia touch-screen voting system. Hursti was happy to take up the challenge, but Stone demurred.

(It should also be noted that Stone and the Board of Supervisors failed to respond to requests to allow Mr. Hursti to address them and answer any questions they might have --- even after he flew 17 hours to testify before them and the "Blue Ribbon" committee.)

The committee's findings also match the recommendations made by SAVE R VOTE (Secure Accurate Verifiable Elections Require Voter Observation of Touchscreen Equipment) to both the "Blue Ribbon" Elections Review Committee (ERC) and the Board Of Supervisors (BoS) earlier this year.

The ERC reports that “…factors should minimize the additional capital outlay necessary to transition to a hybrid system.” The question now becomes: will the BoS reject the recommendations of their own hand-picked committee, who spent thousands of hours laboring over evidence contained in reports, interviews, presentations by expert witnesses, City Clerks, citizens' opinions, news articles, DVDs, conference calls, and SAVE R VOTE members? The full report can be found here.

Who Is On the Elections Review Committee (ERC)?

The "blue ribbon" ERC committee, again, hand-picked by the BoS, consists of a former County Supervisor, Kay Ceniceros; two former judges, Rob Taylor and Jim Ward; retired Press Enterprise newspaper editor and publisher Marcia McQuern; and an independent businesswoman who also serves as the president of a local chamber of commerce, Lynn Baldi. On April 24, Rob Taylor told the BoS in an interim report that, due to such a diversity of opinion, the committee might be submitting “five minority reports.” By July 11th, however, the entire committee issued a unanimous series of 17 recommendations.

Supervisor Stone 'Surprised' By Commission Findings...

Supervisor Jeff Stone expressed surprise over the results of the report, having apparently thought everything in the Riverside system was fine as it was, as he has reiterated time after time from the dais. SAVE R VOTE wonders if he will now re-examine the depth of his allegiance to a system he swears by, after this report from such a well-respected panel.

County Executive Officer and Registrar of Voters Rejected Same Recommendation When Made by SAVE R VOTE

In fact, it should be noted that at least nine of the seventeen recommendations were previously presented to the Board of Supervisors by the SAVE R VOTE group over the last two years, yet have been consistently rejected by the BoS, the County Executive Officer, Larry Parrish, and Registrar of Voters (ROV) Barbara Dunmore.

SAVE R VOTE Reactions

Members of the SAVE R VOTE coordinating council, including Jerry Ewig, Tom Courbat, Maxine Ewig, and Paul Jacobs, expressed elation with most of the 17-points recommended by the ERC.

“This certainly puts the matter of election integrity on a much higher playing field with the recommendation of this esteemed committee,” said Paul Jacobs, weekly columnist in the local paper, The Californian. “I know now what my next week’s column is going to be about,” he said.

Jerry and Maxine Ewig expressed elation when they learned of the news. They are the founders of what was formerly Democracy For America–Temecula Valley, now known as Citizens For Democracy (CFD). CFD and its predecessor have served as an incubator for SAVE R VOTE, providing invaluable guidance, leadership, and personal financial assistance to keep alive the SAVE R VOTE project to protect Riverside County elections.

Maxine Ewig directs most of the recruiting and training of the 100+ volunteers who shoulder the essential field work of monitoring polls, recounts, Logic and Accuracy testing, Absentee Ballot processing, and central tabulator activities at every election since 2005. Jerry Ewig provides much wisdom and direction for the embryonic SAVE R VOTE group to the point that the group is nearly ready to take to its own wings. But that is a story for another time.

PROMINENT posting of signs telling voters PAPER BALLOTS are available at every precinct [contrary to broken promises from the ROV to do so in the past three elections].

Keeping voting machines behind locked doors at polling places until polls open [previous elections saw machines sitting by open doors in school entrances]

Comply with Secretary of State requirements for timely appointment of an Election Observer Panel (EOP) and maintaining the same members for at least two years [currently the ROV appoints whenever she chooses to, dismisses whenever she chooses to, and resists EOP efforts to actually observe the election process].

Drawing random precincts to be audited as close to the time of the audit as possible [last election the ROV pre-selected precincts nearly two weeks before beginning the self-audit].

Post precinct results at each and every precinct as required by law [in two of the last three elections, the ROV refused first to post at ANY precincts, then refused to post at schools and resident polling places. This arrogance came after receiving a letter from the Secretary of State informing her she HAD to comply with the state law in that regard].

Provide a forum for public input on election issues “hosted by the Registrar of Voters at least annually.” [Between the June primary and the November 2006 general election, the ROV refused to meet with the Election Observer Panel except once when she introduced her staff and left the meeting after 3½ minutes. Does this sound like a cooperative ROV working with the citizens who employ her?]

Consider hiring a consultant to review the ROV security procedures. [SAVE R VOTE recommended an independent professional consultant be hired to audit and make recommendations regarding ALL operations of the ROV and a separate financial audit be performed to determine the appropriateness of the nearly $35 million spent on equipment, software and maintenance and supplies associated with the e-voting boondoggle.].

Aggressive Observers

The report observed that “aggressive observers” “…refused instructions to leave secure areas and not interfere with election workers.” This was the first time SAVE R VOTE was aware of this allegation, and we will be seeking specifics to assist in clarifying who and what constitutes “aggressive observers” in the eyes of the commission. In our opinion, voters' insistence that their rights of observation be honored, as codified in the CA State Elections Code, should not be considered “aggressive.” We don’t think the ROV should play “cat and mouse” with the observers (and at least one observing cat seems to agree).

SECURITY, SECURITY, SECURITY

The committee's report made only oblique reference to actual security issues with the machines, despite having been presented ample video and audio evidence from SAVE R VOTE. The committee did suggest, in their 17th recommendation, that a security audit be conducted. SAVE R VOTE has noted serious security gaps in the ROV office for years, and we believe that if the BoS fails to commission the recommended audit, they will be in a very awkward position to explain their lack of action come election time.

The committee also recommended that the ROV “(s)everely restrict physical access to the tabulating room, as allowed by Election Code 15204.” SAVE R VOTE has repeatedly requested access to the central tabulator room to observe error messages on input machines or scanners. From the vantage point allowed observers, almost nothing can be seen of how our votes are being counted.

Note that "physical access to the central tabulator room" is already denied: observers are sequestered outside the counting room such that the screens cannot be read by the naked eye. Unless this writer is misreading the committee’s recommendation, they apparently believe observers need not actually be able to observe anything when monitoring the counting of THEIR OWN votes. If a voting cartridge with 500 votes returns a “Fatal Error – Unable To Process” message, observers cannot see and thus will never know that 500 votes may have just been deleted. The ROV refuses to provide the audit logs of actions that would show such an event. It would seem that the ROV’s security priorities are not on the side of the voters.

“Harassment” of ROV personnel

An especially disturbing observation from the panel was “some … have harassed Registrar of Voters Office personnel, and wasted both the committee’s and the Board of Supervisors' time with repetitive presentations.” This alleged “harassment” is a serious allegation and the report stated it as a fact, not as a complaint reported from a third party.

It will be incumbent upon the Riverside Co. Registrar, Barbara Dunmore, who by virtue of her position MUST have witnessed such alleged “harassment,” to come forth with specifics --- if, in fact, any such incident actually occurred.

Repeating Until SOMEONE Listens!

As to the charge of wasting the Board’s time with repetitive presentations, it is SAVE R VOTE's position that it is the the right of every citizen, for whom each of the Board members work, to make presentations to the Board on any topic at any time.

Under the “Brown Act” in California, the county Board of Supervisors is required to set a reasonable time for each individual to make his/her presentation. The so-called "repetition" of presentations by members of SAVE R VOTE seems to have had the desired effect, with strong recommendations for change, from an independent review panel --- one arguably convened only due to the "repetition" of presentations by SAVE R VOTE --- for the first time since election integrity/security advocates became active in Riverside Co. in 2003.

False Savings

The report clearly states that the alleged "savings" of $600,000 per year in taxpayer dollars, projected by both prior ROV Mischelle Townsend and her successor ROV Barbara Dunmore by going to e-voting, has never been realized. In point of fact, the result is just the opposite: “Evidence presented to the committee indicates an increase, not a decrease, in costs per voter since acquisition of the touch-screen system.” [emphasis added]

The commission's finding corroborates previous reports prepared for the BoS by SAVE R VOTE, from published county budgets, showing costs increasing from $4.7 million/year before e-voting to a whopping $17 million in the year just ended. Now, that’s a long way from ANY savings, but then, perhaps they measure savings differently from how they report them officially.

E-Voting Machine Error Rates

The panel's report also states that the county's Sequoia voting systems registered a 3% error rate, although SAVE R VOTE has not been able to verify how that number was determined, or its accuracy. But then, we have been told by former Riverside Co. ROV Mischelle Townsend that "electronic touch-screen ballots are 100% accurate" and current ROV Ms. Dunmore has maintained the same position.

Voter Confidence Lost

It just isn’t there. In fact, the report states: “Instead of the promised increase in voter confidence, just the opposite occurred. The lack of transparency, the reports of errors in other touch-screen machines…and opinions by experts in the field of election security, have raised serious questions about the security of the touch-screen systems.”

The Future of Election Integrity in Riverside County

Much progress has been made in the last two years. The ERC report is groundbreaking, and should serve as a serious wake-up call to the Board of Supervisors and outgoing County Executive Officer Larry Parrish. The top-to-bottom review, due from California Secretary of State Debra Bowen later this month, will provide critical insight into the very real security issues related to electronic voting statewide.

The Election Integrity/Security Community in Riverside County continues to grow and become a force for true election transparency in Riverside County. SAVE R VOTE will work to ensure that transparency stays in Riverside County.

Because until SAVE R VOTE came along, what happened in Riverside County, stayed in Riverside County.

Let’s all do what we can to support Save R Vote in getting this recommendation broadly in front of the public in Riverside county and build up the necessary pressure to get these recommendations implemented.

Congratulations to the Riverside EI crew! And what an amazing job you have done...

As for the odd complaints about citizen activists and observers... that might have been the sole focus of the ROV et al as they tried to steer the Committee away from the serious problems with the system you were documenting.

If so then while you were sounding the alarms in the Committee's right ear the DRE-lovers were yammering horror stories of rampaging EI advocates in the Committee's left ear in an attempt to discredit you... and the Committee would not have the background to distinguish some of the nonsense and exagerrations from the facts. Not their fault.

And this is an important lesson in politics for EI advocates in that the Committee didn't differentiate between the two sets of data... they issued a report on what they heard from both sides as filtered through their own experiences.

Stalin used only paper ballots. His time was before voting machines or modern computers.

Yet he always won handsomely.

He explained it with this paraphrase:

"The people who cast their paper ballots decide nothing, it is the people who count the paper ballots who decide everything".

We need to realize that without honesty we can not have the american dream democracy.

So you, I, John Gideon, Brad, Bev Harris, and the rest of us can only struggle to make it as tamper proof as possible. We think that means, in this day and age of massive government corruption, a paper ballot system.

But as the Stalin factor shows us, it does not end with that technique, instead, it ends with honesty and integrity in election officials.

Which cannot, like other forms of morality, be legislated. It must be developed within the individual by the will of the individual.

So we must be ever vigilant, no matter what voting system is being touted as heaven sent.

Tom, thank you for this excellent article. Great pics, but what's up with that cat? The county is using delay tactics to push any discussion off until September. Then they'll whine that there is not enough time to switch voting systems. The county supes will probably sue (again) to keep their Sequoia machines. Bravo to the Election Review Committee for a thorough review when many of us expected a whitewash. It is time for short jubilation for the panel's findings, but now we must use the report to get the supes to act now --- not in September. BTW, to Comment #5, paper ballot system have roughly five points of vulnerability VS computerized voting with more than 100 ways to be hacked. Honesty is the best policy, but door locks help to keep people honest by reducing temptation.

BTW, to Comment #5, paper ballot system have roughly five points of vulnerability VS computerized voting with more than 100 ways to be hacked. Honesty is the best policy, but door locks help to keep people honest by reducing temptation.

To which I modify Stalin's statement to:

He who is locked out of the counting rooms may feel secure that his will is being done because there are locks on the doors, however, he who has the keys and can go into the room and come out at will thru the doors during the counting, feels more secure that his will is the will that will be done.

You and I will never know if our election system is a form of The Matrix or not.

We will simply feel varying degrees of security as we are convinced by our friends and associates that what goes on behind the "green door" is what we think is good. After all, Stalin was very, very convincing.

Green Door:

Midnight one more night without sleeping
Watching till that morning comes creeping
Green Door whats that secret your keeping
There's an old piano and they play it hot behind the green door
Don't know what they're doing but they laugh a lot behind the green door
Wish they'd let me in so I could find out what's behind the green door
Knocked once tried to tell em I'd been there
Door slammed hospitality's thin there
Wonder just what's going on in there

How patronizing of you, Dredd. They got down to the nitty gritty. Strange how you missed that.

"We have Stalin as an example of the neutrality of technology"

No, we don't. And your parading of Stalin as exhibit A in your neverending apologia for e-voting shows your ignorance of the subject almost as much as your inability to tell the difference between an e-voting machine and an ATM.

Your analogy is false because you never bother to examine what Stalin would have done if his milieu had included the possibility of something like e-voting... and only a fool would believe that something so easily corrupted would have been "neutral" in his hands.

Technology is not "neutral". Technology is a tool and thus by its very nature technology is change incarnate... it cannot be neutral.

"But as the Stalin factor shows us, it does not end with that technique, instead, it ends with honesty and integrity in election officials."

And this is your fatal error. If you honestly believed this and weren't really trying to be a nonstop shill for Holt and e-voting... if you hadn't persisted in trying to portray all voting technologies as equal in leading up to this... we could have closed this out much sooner.

"... it ends with honesty and integrity in election officials."

No.

It does not.

"... it ends..."

Your fatal error: seeking an arbitrary end result that is literally impossible to obtain... instead of seeking to initiate a self-correcting sustainable process.

It begins with a system designed to acknowledge that humans are fallible and a system that does not encourage them to act alone in any manner that could affect the outcome of an election.

It begins with a system designed to allow those most affected by election outcomes to monitor election administration as it happens and to monitor the elections themselves.

It begins with citizen oversight of elections... and it never ends.

And citizen oversight inevitably will seek to minimize external interference in election results if for no other reason than citizens will want to keep other citizens from taking advantage of any flaws and loopholes in the system.

So all forms of e-voting do the exact opposite of this, of course, but DRE's are the worst offender in terms of enabling misbehavior.

So they got down to the nitty gritty, Dredd... and voted unaminously to remove an easily corrupted influence from elections.

Only a first step, true enough, but it's an important step... one whose magnitude should not be denigrated just to make one of your interminable pro-e-voting talking points.

Congrats and deep thanks and appreciation to Tom, Maxine, Jerry, Paul, and all those in SAVE R VOTE. Hopefully your work, which lead to this report, will lead to similar results in other parts of California and beyond.

Beware of the phrase "hybrid voting system" I found an abstract white paper from Illinois Institute of Tech which uses a term called "hybrid voting system" in electronic voting systems to get a winning candidate.

This "hybrid voting system" is a series of algorithms that they firsts run against test data to get all possible outcomes, which they then implement to the day of elections data to derive the final candidate.

Don't worry, that's not Rove's latest idea... that's a classification algorithm: a programming technique for training "smart" systems to make correct choices from given datasets... so obviously it's not about politics

They're talking about computers using a voting algorithm internally to assign different values for different circumstances to the same datasets. Since they're trying to get the system to select the best solutions for a given problem they use training datasets where they believe* they already know the best solutions... and try to "train" the system to get those best answers own its own.

So yeah... this paper really does talk a lot about voting systems aimed at preconceived results... but it's ok in this case because the computer is just debating with itself (so to speak).

I admit that if taken out of context it could sound very disturbing to EI folks

*"believe they already know"... sometimes the system hands them a surprise

"Zapkitty - how can you be so sure when we are dealing with "the opposites" crowd?"

... errrrr... (small voice) because it's completely unrelated?

"hybrid voting system" turns up 501 results in Google... and almost all of the results sort out into two groups:

1. A paper ballot system combined with an "accessible voting terminal" used as a ballot marking device. Usually these use opscan but there were a couple of weird proposals for attempts to mix in DRE's with the rest of the gear for some reason or the other...*

2. In various countries the term is used to describe the results of mixing different kinds of voting districts... particular definitions being dependent on the country, of course.

But what you came across was a case of researchers using the exact phrase you were looking for... but in a context totally unrelated to political elections.

Computers vote on things on their own all the time... really!

Such voting can range from the simple majority system used by the space shuttle's general purpose computers ("Mob Rule! Mob Rule!") to the truth tables of more complex systems that can compare multiple inputs against multiple stored conditions to yield the most appropriate response to the situation to the sophisticated systems that can categorize, sort and derive meaningful input from data by rewriting their own rules as they go.

So the computers are voting on things inside themselves, and they use a fairly standard set of algorithms to do so, and some researchers said "Let's modify that"... and they created what they called a hybrid voting algoritm. Thus this particular hybrid voting system is unrelated to the two election-oriented types of hybrids I referenced above.

Now if you're looking for nightmares to have about election-related hybrid voting systems might I recommend looking at another (purported) Holt favored system called TruVote? See my footnote below and have... pleasant... dreams.

*(... of perhaps some interest to EI types the most egregious of these DRE/paper hybrids is something called TruVote which, in its current incarnation, has been loyally trotting along "Holt II"'s twisted path while faithfully mutating to match the bills at every turn all the while perpetrating fresh attacks on the democratic process, the voters, their privacy, and their taxes that are unique to it... I hope...)